Air hours slashed for co-pilots (Merged)

[PLovett]

I know airline training is going to change in Australia but for all our sakes I hope not in this manner. :uhoh:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244114

This would seem to be the height of idiocy and rampant policy making ruling over rational thought. I can see it being very attractive to some here though. :mad:

[bushy]

This will be interesting. It will certainly be good for GA, as GA pilots will know that their GA flying is not just an apprenticeship to qualify for that obscene lottery that the airline recruiters run. Those who fly in GA will take a great interest in developing conditions, pay, and safety in GA. The "prostitute" pilots and operators will not come anymore. Pilots will not be exploited as they are now as the oversupply of cpl's will slow down. Conditions will improve.
But there will need to be a transition period in Australia, as there are a lot of pilots who have been working ifor many years trying to get to airlines. I guess they will have to do the MPL training to get there.
And I guess some of the flying schools will invest in good simulators, to teach the MPL syllabus. If the airlines will accept them.

"Empty cruise" on the thread that Peter mentioned has a very interesting post.

If our regulator does not introduce something like this, then they will have missed the opportunity to improve safety in GA. And they will be derelict in their duty.

[neville_nobody]

Think this has been all done before however if this does go ahead the CASA will have to rewrite the regs to remove all the experience requirements for licensing and for getting commands on commercial aircrcaft.

As for cost how expensive would it be to do a 180 hours in a sim?? Endorsement costs alone are upward of AU $30 000. Who's going to have a few hundred grand to throw around just to get paid $50 000 as a Jetstar 2nd officer. Put it in the bank and you'll get a better return.:rolleyes:

[podbreak]

It looks as though this could be the future of Australian airline training (cadets). I've heard QF has been pushing CASA to establish a Multicrew licence system developed specifically for airline use. The licence would allow operations only in a multicrew environment and the training very different from current licence process. One of the main factors pushing this is training costs and the lack of interest of appropriate candidates for the cadet program. A training provider in Brissy has a course proposal, its all 717 sim work post GFPT, and entirely multicrew. I'm guessing it would reduce course costs by at least 30%.

I can't see CASA approving anything like this in the near future, and in its [CASAs] current form. However, if there are drastic changes in the authority, and other airlines push it, who knows? Maybe its not such a bad thing, after all single pilot GA ops are very different to multicrew airline jet ops as many here would agree. One thing is certain though, theres no substitution for being up there in crappy weather without the safety of being in a sim or having an instructor behind you.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Any airline skippers out ther care to comment?
How do you feel about supervising a co-pilot with that sort of experience (or "in-experience", in this case!)?
IMHO co-pilots are (or should be) treated as potential captains. Makes more work for the training system (especially the captains) given a lower base experience level of such a co-pilot.

[Aussie]

It would be interesting to see the results if this was implemented!

Aussie

[ITCZ]

Make no mistake, this MPL is a very serious push by airlines that are struggling to find suitable candidates.

It was raised at the IFALPA convention in Istanbul, and is vigorously opposed by all professional pilot associations.

However, it does point to the fact that there is a growing shortage of suitably qualified right seaters for airline operations.

[Woomera]

An airport refueller tells me CASA are developing their own multi crew license concept.....

[greybeard]

SIA already have an advanced process in this area.
Take a 200/240 hr SP IFR basic twin cadet, give them a ground school, 15 sessions of simulator on a Lear level D, 40 sectors, then a ground school on 777/747/A340, 15 sessions of Sim, 60-80 sectors and you have a fully operational F/O on the type of choice with possibly as little as 400 hours.
The hours are ??? as long range heavy crew sectors can muddy that one.

Then they get 20 P1s a year if lucky on the long range fleets

Singapore had a 1000/1100? total sector, with 350?? P1s as a Min for Command, (I am 3 yrs out of touch) and you have a Capt with the other pilot as the relative newbe.

This process has been pushed hard by various Airlines, particularly with an Ethnic base as they wish/need to be "Local" in the eyes of the traveling masses of that Ethnic base.

To be fair , the ones I had rush past me were not too bad in the main, a small number took a while to catch on, most have gone the full way in 8-12 yrs. Modern aircraft and equipment have seen the demise of Radio Operators, Navigators and Flight Engineers. Most modern Aircraft go along nicely with a little adjustment from the pilots, catastrofic failures get more press than they really deserve, inaccuratly reported as well.
I had 3 failures in 600 hrs on DC-3s, 2 jet failures in 15,000, I do bemone the degredation of the skills I once thought I was good at, and am more a manager than a "pilot" these days, these are the skill changes that will need to be addressed in the proposed changes.

The times they are a changing.

Cheers :ok: :ok:

[neville_nobody]

Greybeard

What you are talking about is pretty much already in place around the world as cadet pilot programs. At least in that instance they have a few hundred hours in the air before being thrown into the big jet. Singapore/China Southern guys get to fly biz jets before they get into the heavy stuff. MPL people won't even hold a pilot's license. They are able to fly their type rated aircraft ONLY and ONLY as a FO. They get 50 odd hours in a C172 then it's all sim from there.

Love to see what Singapore Airlines training budget is, Full CPL + IREX + Twin Endo + Jet Endo + Time in Jet + Heavy Jet Endo + Extra Heavy Jet training. Qantas reckon that their pilots are to expensive already and all they pay for is a type endorsement!!

Anyone got some rough hourly figures for a big jet sim?? I'm guessing that this MPL will be almost double to 2.5 times the cost of current licensing

[rogerexplosion]

One thing is certain though, theres no substitution for being up there in crappy weather without the safety of being in a sim or having an instructor behind you.

Amen to that. I don't believe you can fully compare descision making in an aircraft to descision making in a sim. The lessons you learn in an aircraft when it all goes to crap aren't the same as 'oops i crashed the sim'.

Well, in a world where the cost of taking your 172 for a jolly is becoming increasingly difficult, thats a huge advantage. But 150 hours for a bare minimum CPL I still believe really is 'bare minimum'.

[Contains Nuts]

Ive heard from an operator at Archerfield that they are getting 2 new singles with full glass to start training students for this new MPL. They will be for international airline students however, not local operators. Interesting times ahead...

[greybeard]

One of the main differences in the process is that most if not all of the "old system" had people who liked flying and chose or were chosen to work for a particular Company.

Now a large and increasing number, certainly noticed in a previous life, want the presteige of the job, flying being one of the things necessary to hold that position.

One classic was a Cadet who got of the bus at a wrong stop going for an interview for a non flying job, saw the "walk in interview" sign, survived the process and is now a wide body Captain, go figure that one.

Cheers

[disco_air]

What can happen (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19770327-0&lang=en) with poor recognition of cockpit gradient issues. :suspect:

[N2O]

Another HERE (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000823-0&lang=en)

[spin doctor]

FTA at Adelaide was approached about 8 months ago to come up with a syllabus to present to CASA. The reason for this is the massive shortfall of pilots, and the concern from Airbus and Boeing that they will financially suffer due to not enough pilots thus preventing orders.

This is the future for aviation. I see GA being made redundant as a pathway for airlines, being replaced by schools such as SFC, FTA, Generals and the like. Any flying school that wants a future in Australia must align themselves with an airline and offer the MPL

[PLovett]

spin doctor

I agree with you that GA will become redundant as the pathway for airlines, however, is the MPL the best option or rather something like Singapore's scheme? Methinks the latter.

A couple of years ago I was able to look at the logbook of one of their FOs. Basically heaps of C172 followed by BE58 and Learjet followed by A320 endors, line training and operations. He was just about to start an endorsement on the B777. :D

That airline training will concentrate on multi-crew procedures is a given, my doubts with the MPL concept as set out in the thead that I initially posted is that it gives next to no chance to see how the candidate will cope in a real life aviation environment. After all simulators are a bit like w@nking. They can give you a thrill but its not the real thing.:E

[M.25]

This would have to be a good thing for GA, but you have to wonder what it will do to the profession of airline pilot. Schools will be able to churn out airline ready (?!) pilots in 12-18 months. How much do you think an airline will be willing to pay a MPL holder – considering the duration of their training will be less that 18months start to finish? 40k? It takes 3 times that long to learn how to be a plumber!

It is true that putting around in a 172 is different to flying a jet, but it is definitely better than nothing. You are flying in the same airspace, in the same weather, making command decisions and arranging traffic separation. In any case, since when have the airlines employed 500hr 172 drivers?

A course like this would be accepted much more easily in countries where low hour F/O’s are the norm. It would be a huge transition for Australia where airline minimum requirements are very high by global standards and generally direct entry recruits have well in excess of the requirements.

It will be very interesting to look back on threads like this in 10 years time!

[victor two]

I think it's great. There's no reason why guys with lowish hours can't be perfectly acceptable as airline F/O's after the correct sim and line training.

Lots of twenty year old guys and girls flying solo in F-18's in the military with only a couple hundred hours and a good dose of training.

Not a problem. It also reflects the changed nature of the role of crew in modern jets who are now more systems managers than stick and rudder pilots.

Perfectly acceptable way to get people up to speed I think. Besides, The sims are so good now that this can happen and it's all still perfectly safe.

[rmcdonal]

Seems like a funny idea to consider in Aus. With the hundreds of CPL holders looking for an airline job.
Why would you pay the $70k for a full CPL CMEIR to go and fly around in GA aircraft getting paid crap when you could do the MPL lic and go straight to RHS flying a heavy?
Flying is fun, but GA just doesnt pay the bills in some cases.

[Aussie]

So what happens to all the GA pilots, if something like a MPL is introduced?

Aussie

[404 Titan]

If and when this ever comes in in Australia it will just be another stream for the airlines, not a replacement from the current recruitment paths. The airlines like to recruit from differing backgrounds for a reason. Because they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is also worth pointing out that airlines over the last 15-20 years have greatly diversified their recruitment streams to through the net far and wide to keep considerable pressure on pilots terms & conditions. I cann't see this ever changing.

[neville_nobody]

In reality these licenses are being introduced as a last resort for countries without a source of pilots. Don't know why CASA really want to legislate them for Australia. It's gunna turn into an absolute nightmare as you would have to somehow guarentee candidates airline jobs to justify the amount of money that they outlay at the same time changing all the legal requirements. So what then happens to everyone else who actually meets the airline's entry requirements??

We are seeing it already in regionals/charter companies with QF cadets. Spots that would otherwise be taken by people with experience are been taking by cadets. Companies then complain of a pilot shortage because they don't have anyone with experience to fly as a captain :ugh: When what they should have done is put someone with experience in the RH seat in the first place.

Also I don't think that comparing miltary training and civy training is realistic. The military are training a very low number of candidates overall. Additionally the amount of money spent on military training is astronomical. There is a reason that the military have 20 year F18 pilots and that's because they pick the elite in the country then spend big big dollars training them. Those who don't cut it at any stage are chucked out. If you spent the same amount of money on a MCC that the airforce spends on each of their pilots I would expect that you would have an awesome standard. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work that way.........................

[PLovett]

404 Titan

The only certainty is that airlines will go for the lowest cost option and CASA will do as there told by their political masters who have been told what to do by their friends in the airline boardrooms. There is no reason for optimism in that a MPL will only be a supplement to the present methods of recruiting. :=

The overseas experience is, and I stand to be corrected, I believe based around specific training for a multi-crew environment but it still involves plenty of hands on flying as well as simulator work.

Yes the modern generation of simulators are excellent and yes they can be used for endorsement training without the need for sweaty hands to touch a real aircraft but from ab-initio? I don't think so. := The people who are doing this in Australia are all coming of high experience levels in real flying.

I recall my instrument rating training, a large part of which was done in a simulator. At the conclusion I didn't feel totally confident and I stayed at the training organisation and did ICUS on charter flights for several weeks. At the conclusion of that real experience I felt a lot more confident to face it on my own. :ok:

[Captain Sand Dune]

Lots of twenty year old guys and girls flying solo in F-18's in the military with only a couple hundred hours and a good dose of training.


Not a valid comparison. A "couple of hundred hours" of military style training is not comparible to the same time in the civil world. Although the military use simulators, the vast proportion of their training is done on the real thing.

[ITCZ]

So what happens to all the GA pilots, if something like a MPL is introduced?
Aussie

Mate...

1. Get a CPL
2. Get a multi CIR
3. Get your ATPL subjects
4. Get some experience
5. Check your parents/grandparents/uncles/aunts/all relatives for possible visa or right of residence in other countries. Or marry a European or American backpacker ;)

Its a big wide world out there.

Just a couple of guys I know..... one is being put up in a Paris five star hotel and being paid handsomely to punt around in a BAe146. Another got his first job in East Africa flying a shiny Caravan, washed, cleaned, refuelled and hangared by a team of friendly locals. Another is flying around in a B767 living the high life, despite not having 500 multi command needed in australia to be a Metro captain. :hmm:

Neville said....
In reality these licenses are being introduced as a last resort for countries without a source of pilots. Don't know why CASA really want to legislate them for Australia.

Dead right. And its not CASA that 'wants' an MPL. Not sure that CASA have plans for one. JAA and some ICAO states want one though. That would lead to the larger training schools wanting to issue MPLs to their clients. Two choices... get some of your senior staff to gain and hold ATO for the host country (eg Parafield has/had HK reg aircraft and HK and South African ATO issue) but it might be easier to issue a local license that can be easily converted.

But don't panic just yet if you are a boggie GA pilot on the lower rungs of the ladder.

Anybody thought to work out how much a 70hr real airplane/80 hour simulator MPL might cost? Alteon training in Brisbane charges around $1,000 per hour for simulator time to its contracted clients. A B717 or A320 initial qualification costs somewhere between $60,000 to $70,000 for two pilots paired as trainees in a five or six week course. Thats around 50 hrs in the sim.

An airline that is considering training its own MPLs due to a dwindling or nonexistant GA pilot pool, is looking at $100,000+ in training costs. And you have to find them, train them, accept some failures, feed them, house them, pay them a training wage........

If you have a license, an instrument rating, the right attitude and background, you are already at least $70,000 cheaper for that airline to put you in the right hand seat.

[Much Ado]

I think the cost of this new form of licence will be so expensive and have such limited application that few people will have the financial resources to pay for it themselves let alone the desire to do so without a gauranteed job at the end of the process.

The way it will work in the UK/Eurpope will be via airline sponsored training through the auspices of existing sim training establishments, thereby minimising airline expenditure in setup/on going costs.

I doubt Australian airlines will ever pay for candidates training but it has been a common thing in the UK for going on 40 years.

In the EU/UK it is common for 200-300hr TT pilots to find themselves sitting in the RHS of a 737/A320. This is because the UK/EU have no GA...that is not the case around the rest of the world....it is a specifically EU/UK experience. It is wrong to suggest these licence holders won't be up to the job...by the time they have 500 TT they will be indestinguishable from any other new hire low time (200-300hr) FO with 200 jet. By the time they have 5000 hrs they will be well and truly capable of changing seats.

[an-124]

from news.com

CO-PILOTS with less flying experience than the September 11 terrorists will be able to take control of commercial passenger jets if a new international aviation standard is adopted in Australia.

A new category of licences specifically for co-pilots has been introduced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation to address a global shortage of commercial pilots. It can be adopted around the world from November 23.

If used in Australia, co-pilots will be able to fly passenger jets after having completed 10 hours of solo flying. The existing Australian standard is 100 hours.

The requirements for the multicrew pilot's licence emphasises flight-simulator training, which is cheaper and quicker than actual air time. Simulators have been criticised for failing to fully replicate flight experiences such as g-forces and a pilot's "emotional sense of danger".

ICAO's minimum of 10 hours' solo flying in an actual plane - coupled with 240 hours' total experience - has alarmed Australian pilots' groups and left critics disgusted that passengers would be entrusted to people with less flight time than the al-Qaeda hijackers.

Opposition transport spokesman Kerry O'Brien said the 10-hour rule was a safety concern and called for a Senate inquiry into the proposal.

"The hijackers who flew their planes into the World Trade Centre had more flying hours than that," he said.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has begun a 12-month consultation process to determine whether Australia should increase the minimum standards before the international licence is introduced here.

"What ICAO puts forward are the minimum standards, it's up to us in consultation with industry. We might decide different figures to the ones ICAO is putting forward," a CASA spokesman said.

Currently in Australia, pilots and co-pilots hold air transport pilot's licences, which require 100 hours flying unsupervised as "pilot in command" and 1500 hours in total.

A CASA spokesman confirmed that under the multicrew pilot's licence, co-pilots would fly less because there was "less emphasis on flying irrelevant aircraft such as single-engine aircraft".

"A lot of those hours (required under the current standard) consist of flying around in single-engine aircraft and they're taking them out because they're not particularly relevant," he said.

"(Presently) you learn a lot of things that aren't particularly applicable to flying a 737 or a 747. This is specifically designed for someone who wants to fly a big aircraft."

But the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots have grave concerns about the proposal.

"Downgrading of these standards cannot and must not be accepted in an industry that is striving to improve flight safety in the face of large traffic increases over the next several years," IFALPA president Dennis Dolan wrote to CASA chief Bruce Byron last month.

AFAP head Bryan Murray said his association was not convinced the multicrew pilot's licence would "produce airline pilots of a standard at least equal to that currently being achieved".

AIPA said the licence was "an extremely significant reduction in traditional minimum-experience requirements compared with the existing air transport pilot licence". AIPA general manager Peter Somerville called for a full regulatory review and asked Transport Minister Mark Vaile to intervene.

"It would be an excellent circuit breaker for the new minister to have a look at the MPL issue and slow the whole process down till we can get a proper handle on it," he said.

[Aussie]

Interesting :confused:

Aus has such an oversupply of pilots as it is, dont think we need to put out there!!!

Aussie

[glekichi]

Although I am against the multi-crew concept (the thought of bare minimum hour jet pilots in Europe and Asia is scary enough with 250hrs), using 911 like that is sickening and proves absolutely nothing.

[rmcdonal]

to address a global shortage of commercial pilots
Really? Hey you know where to contact me.

[PLovett]

Moderators,

If you care to combine this thread with the one I started that is now on page 6 of this forum it will quicken the debate. :ok:

[VH-Cheer Up]

That can't possibly be right.

The article is suggesting a "co-pilot" would have only ten hours of solo experience? I had that after three weeks of flying training... But I don't think I'd have been quite up to flying a ME prop at that point, let alone a jet... A whole world of problems unfold a whole lot faster at jet speeds.

Surely the article must be missing important salient facts. Would not the "co-pilot" have had to do all the ATPL theory first, and have held a PPL and CPL and have accumulated a significant number of command hours?

Or is that the point - they're proposing to fast track all that out of the system?

If so, count me amongst the unhappy ones...

VHCU

[Cloud Cutter]

Do co-pilots in Aussie really need an ATPL as stated in the article? That's news to me. In most places, a CPL is sufficient.

You would not need a PPL, CPL or IR, as the MCL/MPL replaces all of these (and of course, you wouldn't meet the hour requirements). You would not be qualified to take your mates for a joyride in a 172.

240 hours of relevant, multi-crew experience should adequately prepare the candidate for an airline environment. As the article suggests, the hour requirements under the current system include much flight time that is not very relevant. Solo time is one of these. Command aptitude can be easily developed online as currently implemented by most, if not all airlines.

This doesn't do anything to allay the oversupply issue, and would only really work in a preselection, cadet-style program supported by the airlines.

[Sunfish]

ABC is reporting about CASA's proposed "watered down" co-pilot licence which has considerably reduced minima for "irrelevent" experience, such as flying single engine aircraft around the outback.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765615.htm

It would now appear that even a mug like me could have a go, but to paraphrase Groucho Marks, I wouldn't want to fly with an airline that would have the likes of me in the co pilots seat.

Seriously, I don't think its a good idea, based not on my extremely limited aeronautical knowledge, but on my sailing experience. There is a certain "seat of the pants" experience you get sailing small boats that makes a transfer into larger vessels relatively easy because you are used to dealing with forces involved directly and personally and understand them intimately. As a result the skippers reactions are much quicker than someone who has only had an academic (dare I say simulated?) experience of what is going on.

Many years ago I was out the back of the Hangar at Tulla and watched a DC9 make what I now know to be a circling approach to 34, he had about 45 degrees of bank and made an almost perfect semi circular descent to the threshold. It was blowing like the clappers from the North and a ripper of a southerly front cloud was only a mile or two to the South and at no more than 500 feet AGL. He beat the front by about three minutes. I don't think the pilot that did it learned it on MS Flight Simulator or any other simulator either.

Over to you experts.

[Gnadenburg]

Are they going to up the command requirements to compensate for the lack of support and experience coming from the right hand seat?

[Air Ace]

The original idea of a "multi crew license" came from Europe. It is also being considered in the USA.

I am not an advocate for the proposed "multi crew license" but suggest you carefully read the proposal before commenting, rather than accepting only what is posted in PPRuNe.

In a multi crew aircraft, any deficiency in knowledge in the right seat can not be compensated by additional experience in the left seat. The proposal attempts to address that issue.

[tail wheel]

Sorry if this thread appears confusing, but it is the result of merging three separate threads and I don't have time to sort out individual posts.

[Wizofoz]

The point is we are not talking about replacing thousands of hours of Bush flying with a few hours in the sim.

I regularly fly with FOs who have as little as 270hrs actual flight time. the little bit of solo lighty flying they have done really is rather irrelevent to the job they are training for. I would rather they did more training in a Multi-pilot sim of the type and in the operations they are going to actually operate they pounding the circuit in a Cherokee.

Where I'd be wary is that this could be a money maker for the likes of VB or J*. "Hand over your 200K and we'll make you a pilot double quick!!"

Given the choice between a guy with a couple of thousand hours GA or a freshie Cadet, I take the bush basher every time, but in environments (notably Europe) where that is not always an option, pilots specifically trained for the job at hand is not a bad way to go.

[Sunfish]

Usually when a company complains about not being able to find staff they deliberately forget to add the important bit they can't find staff at the price they are willing to pay.

I would expect that the airlines can find any amount of highly motivated recruits if they raised the pay by $100,00 per annum.

My guess is that the ideal that the airlines (especially in Australia) are striving for is for company licenced pilots whose licences are not readily transferable. These people are then tied to the company and can be paid a pittance.

In a way this is a throwback to the "bad old days" in a way. Everyone knew that TAA wouldn't "poach" Ansett staff and Ansett returned the favour, you were effectively tied to your company for life if you wanted to stay in the industry.. The pay was RS unless you had a really strong union. I left AN when G McM explained to me that he couldn't match my post MBA Consulting job offer starting salary because it was more than an AN State manager was getting!

[podbreak]

Don't be alarmed by this licence; some would argue that the current requirements are far too low. Fact is, if you don't cut the mustard - you won't be flying in the airline. It'll become apparent when you do your endorsements/line training. If you do make it through; 10 hours is in the same ballpark as 100 (which many QF cadets joined with), its a very small number.

Aviation will never return to the good 'ol days, where flying was dangerous and pilots were heros. The genious of engineering and technology has all but ruined the 'magic' of being an airline pilot. Planes are so very safe now, they don't need einstein to fly 'em. Welcome to the new era of bus drivers. Thats about all the doom and gloom I can muster up for now :E

The comparison of 9/11 here is stupid and insensitive. For starters there was no evidence to suggest the 9/11 pilots had a 'lack' of skill, on the contrary, so what does this comparison hope to illustrate?! :mad:

[Air Ace]

podbreak is on the money. So far the usual uninformed debate. Read my earlier post:
I am not an advocate for the proposed "multi crew license" but suggest you carefully read the proposal before commenting, rather than accepting only what is posted in PPRuNe.

I could add "and making a fool of yourself....."!

Why is informed debate so rare there days?

:ugh: :ugh:

[neville_nobody]

So CASA are saying that they are going to rewrite entire slabs of legislation and lower every standard that has even been established in this country?

Are insurance companies now going to change all their minimums too??

Who is going to pay huge coin for a MPL only to get a job at Skippers(who are a multi crew RPT operation) working as a casual? It is only justifiable if you can get a high paying job at the end of it.

It should also be stated that the majority of people getting into airlines do not walk from a single piston into jets. The majority of people flying jets in this country previous job would have been on some type of turbo prop or jet. Flying small aircraft around is only one step along the way.

This license is a last resort for countries that want to train nationals into their airlines not for Australia where we are exporting pilots to the rest of the world.

[Keg]

10 hours is in the same ballpark as 100 (which many QF cadets joined with),

With respect, I had the opportunity to scare myself witless a few times in that 100 hours. It also enabled me to have a license to go out and gain further experiences in aviation learning all the things that pilots learn.

I learnt a significant amount from not just those scary times but a whole bunch of the other time spent flogging around on my own- lessons that I still draw on some 7000 hours later.

[Jet_A_Knight]

CASA Media Release - Tuesday 17 October 2006
New pilot licence to improve airline safety
Improved air safety is the key principle behind a proposal for a new way of training and licensing airline co-pilots.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has started work on developing regulations to introduce a multi-crew pilot licence.

This licence would be issued to people who train specifically to become a first officer in an air transport operation.

The move to develop the new regulations will keep Australia at the forefront of international changes in air safety, in line with the latest standards issued by the International Civil Aviation Organisation which come into effect in November.

CASA and other world-leading safety regulators have been working with the International Civil Aviation Organisation to improve safety by developing better training standards for airline pilots.

Safety research over many years has indicated that failures in teamwork are a major contributor to airline accidents. One reason is that traditional methods of training pilots emphasise independence and individual skills.

This is suits single pilot operations but pilots moving to work in airlines have needed ‘top up' training to work effectively in the small teams that fly air transport aircraft. The training behind the proposed new licence is designed to embed multi-crew teamwork from the very start of training, which will lift safety standards.

CASA will undertake a comprehensive consultation process with the relevant sectors of the aviation industry in developing the regulations to introduce the new licence.

This means the final details of the regulations have not yet been determined, with the rules not expected to be finalised until the second half of next year.

Claims that the changes will put safety at risk have been firmly rejected by CASA. People training for the multi-crew licence will focus on large aircraft flying skills, crew resource management and threat and error management throughout their year-long training.

Practical flying training will include flying aircraft, as well as operations in sophisticated simulators, with a strong emphasis on the competencies required for flying large turbine powered aircraft in a multi-crew environment.

In Australia, there will be a requirement for up to 70 hours flying training in aircraft, out of 240 hours total flying training time.


Personally, I don't undertand how putting a 240hr pilot in the RHS straight out of the 'magenta kindergarten' will improve safety over a pilot who has a few thousand hours PIC, and does a CRM , Multi Crew or other 'top-up' course.

I can understand this MCL being 'warranted' in places of short supply like China, India etc, but why the hell are CASA planning to introduce this here??

What really starts to give me the ****s is the way that experience is fast becoming an albatross around pilot's necks. It is such utter BS to believe that if a pilot has SP experience, that they can't make the transition to 'work in small teams like in an airline'. It's another skill to learn, on top of all the other skills we learn as we gather experience.

It really is starting to turn into some sort of sick joke; and the fact that CASA are playing this as 'increased safety' is frankly, pathetic.
It's all fun and games until 'good times go bad'.:mad:

[Grunf]

Hello all.

Some of you'll be happy some won't (majority I think) but it seems Australian CAA (CASA) made a decision to cut down the required time for the first officer license down to 240hr (total) (70hrs flying, 10hrs solo):ugh: .

I wonder, I wonder...how low can you go...:}

Here is the link (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/06-10-17.htm)

Are we all happy or what? Is this going to become a trend?

Are all the FS jockeys going to start flying passengers? :eek:

If that is in works do we know what our respective CAAs are doing?

By the way, with a learner's permit (New South Wales, for example) you need to drive for at least 50hrs to get the right to go for a test that will get you a provisional license.

50hrs driving time, 70hrs flying time...hmmm:E

Cheers

[jondc9]

its all about money isn't it?

[Capt Fathom]

Under Discussion Here! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248181)

[neville_nobody]

Keg what the hell were you doing to scare yourself numerous times in 100 hours?? Lucky you never did a couple of thousand in GA!! I only had a three "scares" in 2000 hours one weather related the others mechanical. However you are stronger for experience and I personally believe this is the weak link in the new license. The first time these guy experience something will be in a jet with several hundred people sitting behind them. Yeah sure they do it in the sim however the "oh ****e this is for real" factor will be the difference!

CASA's media release seems to forget about all the guys in non airline operations doing multi crew. Are these guys also unsuitable for moving into airline operations even though they are already multi crew pilots.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Magenta Kindergarten?

[Grunf]

OK, I do not check this one often, I posted it somewhere else but it ended here.

I guess a removal is in order.

Cheers

[dodgybrothers]

The places where this MCL is aimed for are the most dangerous anyway. Imagine Asia where some guys, I won't say all, are just plain scary. Throw some 100 hour wonder and an unusual situation, because it does not have to be an emergency situation to end up that way, and then see the result. The real problem will be that the weight will be placed firmly on the shoulders of the skipper and it will revert to single pilot ops because the other guy has had no experience in unusual situations.

I cannot believe the regulatory authority in this country is entertaining the thought of placing these guys in our workplace. First we have an extension of the retirement age and now a lowering of standards, its a recipe for disaster not an improvement of safety standards.

I hope that the all the proffessional organisations in the country that represent proffessional pilots fights this vigorously and beat it into submission.

steps down from soapbox......

[VH-Cheer Up]

I suppose the real conceren is where the skiper IS the unusual situation. Imagine scenarios like the BA flight where the BAC1-11 captain was sucked through the windscreen on a well-established climb out of Heathrow, and the FO had to bring it down and land at Eastleigh, too heavy, too short, but all walked away. Not sure a 2-300 hour chappie would have done quite such a sterling job.

I thought the whole point of PNF/P2/"The Co-pilot" was to make sure the PF doesn't make any errors... Isn't there going to be a whole lot of "what's that for?" and "what's it doing now?" going on...

VHCU

[Aussie]

Where is this info coming from?
Aussie

[Chimbu chuckles]

Interesting innit?

They are belittling the very skills a captain is going to possibly need when the **** hits the fan big time...single pilot skills:ugh:

In the not too distant future there are going to be lots of jets flying around with VERY steep cross cockpit gradients. I certainly remember learning that was a bad thing in CRM...after my 'worthless' 7000 hrs of SP IFR RPT/charter experience.

The problem is that modern jets are so reliable that a certain sector of our industry, beancounters, have decided that experience is truly an expensive liability...and the sundry aviation authorities are so 'cornered' by a lack of pertinent experience within their ranks they are being led down a dangerous path and don't even realise it.

Personally I don't see any advantage in Australia for such a licence and I don't think the airlines will hire such licence holders...but in Asia and the UK/EU it is a different story. They 'successfully' transition cadets with not much more experience than a MPL holder might have, although it's all in real aeroplanes...but even then many cadets, or at least those working for smarter airlines, spend time in large turboprops, a couple of years usually, before sitting in a widebody.

It is an undeniable fact of life that if you don't learn the basics of flying before you get to a widebody jet you won't learn them after. Since transitioning from older narrow body jets where lots of handflying was the norm to modern widebodies I wouldn't average 3-4 minutes of handflying per PF sector. That equates to 20 odd minutes a month and all of that is hand flying below 1000' on departure or approach.

It isn't an issue because of the 11000 hrs that came before...I find it 'interesting' that various aviation authorities think it won't create a new set of problems.

[neville_nobody]

Read it and weep. Absolute heartbreaking for people busting their butts in GA. You'll finally get all this experience that everyone goes on about only to find that you get by passed by someone with a bigger bank account.

http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2006/06-10-17.htm

[Sleeve Wing]

1. WRT last para. of CASA proposal, so they're actually going to insist on "practical flying training" as well as being able to get along with the Captain.............!!!!!!!!!!

2. Just as a matter of interest, isn't this exactly what is being proposed in the UK ?

3. Having flown with vastly different characters in the right-hand seat, could it be that this just might be a good idea ??

[cunninglinguist]

Have'nt had to do alot of single pilot IFR since have been flying hi cap RPT, I suppose it could be fun..................:confused:

[neville_nobody]

I think the issue is why is it necessary in Australia?? There will always be a vast multitude of pilots to choose from in this country. Most people getting into major airlines in this country are already coming from a multi crew background. So why the hell do we NEED to put someone with absolutely no flying experience whatsoever in a jet. For countries with a limited supply of pilots this is fine, it's a last resort, but in Australia airlines are not exactly scatching to find applicants. So much so people are spending thousands of dollars just to do an interview Easterns are charging $10 000 for a 45 000 a year job. National jet pilots took pay cuts to win a contract. These are not signs of a desperate pilot shortage. 200 hours of training does not equal thousands hours of flying experience.

[dodgybrothers]

the info I had on these MCLs 12 months ago said that the guys occupying the RHS with a MCL would never be able to hold a command. Is that the case? If so, this poses a couple of questions:

1. Who are eventually going to replace the guys in the LHS?
2. If they do have replacements, where the fcuk are they going to come from?

I can't believe that our regulator with it's usual sit on hands approach and see what happens, has come out in undeniable support for such a rediculous and obvious push by airlines to keep their pilots in financial order.

[RYAN TCAD]

I think you will find Easterns are in fact charging $18,000.00 for this!

I know - as i refused their invitation to update my resume when i read their conditions that were sent to me along with the invitation.

Bo!

[mingalababya]

I'd be interested to hear what the airlines think of this and whether they'll actualy consider employing anyone with an MPL over someome who meets their current minimum requirements.

[compressor stall]

Can somebody please clarify whether these co-pilots will ever be allowed to move into the LHS? Is there a proposed change in the regs to allow this?

[VH DSJ]

So what happens to all the GA pilots, if something like a MPL is introduced?
It'll be the end of GA as we know it. If you had a $60K budget to spend on becoming an airline pilot, which path would you choose? Most 17-18 year pimpled faced kid would choose the MCL over the current 150-200 hour CPL pathway after which, you're no closer to any sort of flying job anyway. Current flying school establishments will sell their 30 year old planes and invest in flight sims . The weekend warriors will fly sports aircraft and ultralights. And finally, the councils who want to redevelop land where GA airports currently exist wil be rubbing their hands with excitement.
Good bye GA, nice knowing you.

[GaryGnu]

Can somebody please clarify whether these co-pilots will ever be allowed to move into the LHS? Is there a proposed change in the regs to allow this?

Assuming that all a Pilot requires to sit in the LHS of a HC RPT aircraft is an ATPL, then yes they will be. This ignores any internal airline requirements.

ICAO Annex 1 will be amended with effect from 23rd November to define the term Pilot Acting in Command Under Supervision (PICUS) and add an option for experience requirements for an ATPL. 1500 hrs will still be required for an ATPL but it may comprise 500hrs PICUS or 250hrs PIC (of which 100hrs may be PIC and the remaining 150 hrs PICUS).

So in theory a MPL holder with only 10hrs Solo (the min required under Annex 1) could sit in the RHS and accrue all the experience required for the issue of an ATPL. Whether the then ATPL holder is allowed to sit in the LHS is then a matter for the airlines.

Assuming that CASA will change the regs to reflect ICAO annex 1 then there must be an amendment coming

[Merlins Magic]

ICAO Annex 1 will be amended with effect from 23rd November to define the term Pilot Acting in Command Under Supervision (PICUS) and add an option for experience requirements for an ATPL. 1500 hrs will still be required for an ATPL but it may comprise 500hrs PICUS or 250hrs PIC (of which 100hrs may be PIC and the remaining 150 hrs PICUS).


Gary

Can you please share with us the source of this enlightening information. I too have heard of changes taking place but as yet I have not been able to locate any details regarding these changes and in particular the new flight time requirements.

Thanks

MM

[GaryGnu]

Merlins,

As stated, it is in Amendment 167 (not sure about the number) to ICAO Annex 1, effective 23rd November 2006. Find yourself a copy and it is there in black and white.

Note this is an ICAO Document, not an Australian one. CASA may or may not (but one thinks it will) align the Australian Regualtions with Annex 1.

[Chocks Away]

Fellas,
Instead of gabbling away and making noise amoungst youselves on here like some bunch of wounded fowl, keep up to date on YOUR AVIATION REGULATORS WEBSITE, where ever you are in the world! THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWERS ARE... because WE read from them and so should you .... to find the answers!:) Get the drift...READ before you open your mouth!

[mingalababya]

Just read this from the ICAO website regarding the MPL (http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2000/an.2000.wp.7602.en/AN.2000.WP.7602.EN.HTM);
3.3 A last point which was not addressed in AN-WP/7380 but which received considerable attention during the Madrid informal meeting was the fact that the current Standards contained in Annex 1 do not necessarily reflect orof facilitate the best practices for the industry. A primary case in point is the underlying concept of Annex 1 whereby a pilot has to be trained for single pilot operations (with a relatively large number of solo or pilot-in-command time hours) before being exposed to multi-pilot operations. There was a consensus in the meeting that this approach not only makes excessive demands on the length and cost of training but is also a source of negative learning, which has a detrimental impact on the safety of multi-pilot operations. Other problems are that the curriculum does not reflect modern technologies and procedures and that the various means of simulation are not given appropriate credit.
So are they now saying that we (the industry) have been barking up the wrong tree all this while and that single pilot experience is actually detrimental to flight safety in a multi-crew environment? Now, that's a pretty big call, given that many of the airlines here require at least 500 hours multi PIC as a minimum.

[bushy]

DSJ

GA does not only consist of capital city flying schools.

The MCPL will separate ga pilots from aspiring airline pilots, which will be good for the real GA. The hundreds of ga charter aircraft in inland Australia will eventually be flown by experienced, specialised bush pilots, who will be paid properly. They will not have a flood of transient airline wannabies who do not care about the future of their industry, snapping at their heels.
And those operators who exploit new pilots will have to change, or go, because no-one will tolerate that anymore. Standards will rise.

It will be next year before the rules come into force, and the airlines will obviously, still take the cheapest pilots they can get. I expect to see a transition period of a few years, before the new MCPL pilots come along.

[Jet_A_Knight]

I first read about the MCL a few months ago in a magazine - I can't recall whether it was Regional Airline World, or some sort of international aviation training industry magazine, and it basically was an interview with one of the head guys at Alteon, wrt to training enough pilots for the projected pilot requirements over the next 25years.

They forecast that in Asia alone - excluding China - a requirement of 2300pilots/year for the next 25 years. Seriously.

The airlines were looking for ways to make up crew for the projected demand, and the aim of Alteons training program for the MCL is to basically cut down on the time it takes to train pilots. The aim of their program is to get someone off the street, and into the RHS of an airliner in 8 months.

That's ok, I suppose, if that's what you need.

Just don't dress this bollocks up as 'improving safety ', like CASA is doing with their press release. Absolute BS:mad:

If you scratch a little deeper into this, one starts to see that there are commercial and vested interests in this licence being set up in Australia - a country with excess pilots and exporting to the world, as someone has said on these forums.

From this site: http://www.alteontraining.com/firstofficer/default.aspx

Multi-Crew Pilot License (MPL) Program

In November, 2006, Alteon will launch a beta test of our MPL training program in Brisbane, Australia. Though this product is still in the development phase, we invite you to learn more about this new approach to pilot licensing.

For more information about our future MPL license program (Development, FAQ's, News and Events), please click here

I've said it before, it's all fun and games until 'good times go bad '.